Divine v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co.

614 So. 2d 683, 1993 WL 55988
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 5, 1993
Docket92-674
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 614 So. 2d 683 (Divine v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Divine v. Prudential Property & Cas. Ins. Co., 614 So. 2d 683, 1993 WL 55988 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

614 So.2d 683 (1993)

Daniel DIVINE and Sandra Divine, Appellants,
v.
PRUDENTIAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an insurance corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 92-674.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 5, 1993.

Paul B. Irvin and Joe Polich, Jr. of Troutman, Williams, Irvin & Green, P.A., Winter Park, for appellants.

Lora A., Dunlap and J. Allen Cooper of Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Keiner, Wack & Dickson, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse on the authority of Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 609 So.2d 1385 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). We are unpersuaded by appellees' attempt to distinguish this case on the basis that the coverage limitation which it contends precludes uninsured motorist (UM) coverage is more narrow than that contained in Nationwide's policy. The essential question is whether, by the simple expedient of moving exclusionary language into the definition of who is "insured" under the policy, insurers can avoid the rule of Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 252 So.2d 229, 237 (Fla. 1971) and the statutory device allowing insurers to offer policies of uninsured motorist coverage containing such coverage limitations. As in Nationwide, we hold the insurer may not do so. Mullis holds that UM covers a class I insured whenever and wherever bodily injury is inflicted on him by an uninsured motorist. Mullis does not permit coverage to be confined to injury while operating only the owned vehicle or while not operating a vehicle furnished for the insured's regular use, no matter whether *684 such limitations be found in an exclusion or in a definition of who is insured. The attempt is a disingenuous misapplication of the maxim that UM coverage follows liability coverage and we will not validate it.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GOSHORN, C.J., W. SHARP and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

GEICO Indem. Co. v. Perez
260 So. 3d 342 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Beebe v. American Ambassador Cas. Co.
659 So. 2d 701 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
World Wide Underwriters Ins. v. Welker
640 So. 2d 46 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1994)
Omar v. Allstate Ins. Co.
632 So. 2d 214 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
614 So. 2d 683, 1993 WL 55988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/divine-v-prudential-property-cas-ins-co-fladistctapp-1993.